Regulations & Safety
FAA Delays Secondary Cockpit Barrier Rule Implementation to 2026
FAA postpones secondary cockpit barrier mandate by one year due to certification and training challenges for new U.S. passenger aircraft.
Comprehensive Analysis of the FAA‘s One-Year Delay for Secondary Cockpit Barrier Implementation
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a one-year delay on July 22, 2025, for the implementation of its rule requiring secondary cockpit barriers on newly manufactured U.S. passenger aircraft. This decision responds to industry requests for additional preparation time amid unresolved certification and training challenges. The barrier mandate, originally set for August 2025, aims to prevent unauthorized access to flight decks when cockpit doors are open, addressing security vulnerabilities exposed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Airlines for America (A4A), representing major carriers like Delta and American Airlines, sought a two-year extension due to incomplete FAA certification of barrier systems and absent training protocols. Conversely, pilot unions vehemently opposed any delay, citing persistent terrorism threats. This interim resolution balances operational realities against aviation security imperatives while spotlighting systemic regulatory coordination gaps.
Historical Context and Legislative Foundations of Flight Deck Security
Aviation security underwent transformative changes following the September 11, 2001, hijackings, where terrorists exploited cockpit access during door transitions. The FAA initially mandated reinforced cockpit doors in 2007, requiring them to remain locked during flight except for essential access. However, this left vulnerabilities when doors opened for crew movements, meals, or lavatory use.
Congressional action via Section 336 of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act directed the FAA to require secondary barriers on all new passenger aircraft manufactured for U.S. airlines. The legislation set a 2019 deadline for rule implementation, but procedural delays postponed the proposed rule until July 2022 and the final rule until June 14, 2023. This final rule applied exclusively to aircraft manufactured after August 25, 2025, exempting existing fleets from retrofits.
This timeline illustrates the complexities of aviation regulation, where legislative intent often collides with the procedural rigor of rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The delay between congressional mandate and final rule underscores the challenges of aligning policy with technical feasibility and stakeholder consensus.
Technical Specifications and Implementation Challenges
The Installed Physical Secondary Barrier (IPSB) functions as a retractable gate or partition between the forward galley and cockpit door. FAA Advisory Circular 25.795-10 mandates it withstand 600 pounds of static pressure and 250 pounds of pull force at critical points like latches and hinges. During door transitions, averaging 5–10 seconds, the barrier must delay intrusion long enough for crew to secure the cockpit.
Despite the 2023 rule, no IPSB models had received FAA certification by July 2025. Manufacturers like SCHROTH and AmSafe Bridport developed prototypes, but testing protocols remained incomplete. Concurrently, airlines lacked FAA-approved training modules for crew deployment procedures. Airlines for America emphasized this created an “impossible timeline,” as manuals, simulations, and recurrent training programs require 12–18 months to develop post-certification.
These technical gaps prompted A4A’s petition for a delay, arguing that without certified barriers or training frameworks, compliance would be infeasible and potentially disruptive to aircraft deliveries and operations.
“The FAA’s delay acknowledges the practical hurdles airlines face, but it also highlights the need for better regulatory coordination to avoid last-minute bottlenecks in critical safety implementations.”
Stakeholder Divisions and Security Debates
Airlines for America’s Position
A4A’s May 5, 2025, petition requested a two-year delay, arguing that uncertified barriers and absent training materials made compliance unfeasible. They noted that existing protocols, like using galley carts as temporary barricades, provided equivalent security during door transitions. Major carriers warned of operational disruptions, including grounded aircraft, if the rule took effect without certified solutions.
The organization emphasized that manufacturers had not finalized IPSB designs and that simulation-based training for crew members could not begin without FAA-approved curriculums. These concerns were echoed by regional carriers, who feared disproportionate impacts on smaller fleets and aircraft types.
From A4A’s standpoint, the delay was not a rejection of security improvements but a necessary adjustment to align safety goals with operational feasibility.
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) Opposition
ALPA President Jason Ambrosi condemned delay requests as “stalling tactics,” highlighting 52 global hijacking attempts since 2001 as evidence of enduring threats. The union cited FAA-funded studies showing IPSBs reduce intrusion risk by 15% and called the $5 million–$29 million annual industry cost negligible against terrorism risks.
ALPA noted that Boeing and Airbus previously offered IPSBs as standard equipment, questioning manufacturers’ preparation delays. The union also emphasized that the FAA’s own data supported the effectiveness of secondary barriers in reducing the likelihood of successful cockpit intrusions.
For ALPA and other pilot unions, the delay represents a missed opportunity to close a known security gap, particularly when the technology and policy frameworks have been under discussion for nearly a decade.
FAA’s Mediating Role
The FAA’s one-year compromise acknowledged certification bottlenecks while rejecting calls for more extensive delays. Acting Administrator Billy Nolen emphasized that secondary barriers “ensure flight crews have the physical protections they deserve,” aligning with the Biden-Harris administration’s prioritization of the rule.
The agency committed to finalizing certification standards by October 2025, aiming to provide manufacturers and airlines a clear path to compliance. The FAA also reiterated that the rule applies only to new aircraft and does not require retrofits for existing fleets.
By choosing a middle path, the FAA seeks to preserve the rule’s integrity while accommodating industry readiness, though this approach has drawn criticism from both safety advocates and operational stakeholders.
Economic and Risk-Analysis Frameworks
Cost estimates for implementing secondary barriers vary widely depending on aircraft type and scope of deployment. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated per-aircraft costs between $5,000 and $12,000, while the FAA projected up to $35,000 per unit including installation and training. Equipping the entire U.S. passenger fleet could cost between $71 million and $207 million.
The FAA’s 2022 regulatory impact analysis forecast annualized costs of $20.3 million to $29 million over a 50-year horizon. These figures include equipment, certification, training, and maintenance expenses. Despite these costs, multiple studies have found strong benefit-to-cost ratios for IPSBs.
A University of Newcastle study determined IPSBs yield a 41:1 benefit-cost ratio, assuming they prevent 9/11-scale attacks valued at $37.7 billion. The FAA’s break-even analysis concluded barriers are cost-effective if the annual probability of a successful hijacking exceeds 0.66%, or one attack every 151 years. Given the persistent threat landscape, many experts consider this a conservative threshold.
Global Context and Industry Implications
Internationally, the U.S. delay contrasts with growing momentum toward secondary barriers. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is drafting similar mandates, while Middle Eastern carriers like Emirates have voluntarily installed IPSBs on their Airbus A380 fleets. These developments suggest a broader industry trend toward enhanced cockpit security.
Domestically, the delay affects aircraft production pipelines. Airbus designated AmSafe Bridport’s fabric-and-frame barrier for A220 line-fit installations, while Boeing faces supply-chain challenges in retrofitting 737 MAX deliveries. The Regional Airline Association (RAA) supported the delay, citing the complexity of integrating barriers into smaller aircraft like the Embraer E175.
The rule’s exemption for cargo aircraft remains contentious. ALPA and other safety advocates argue that freighters, which often operate with fewer crew and security personnel, should also be subject to the IPSB requirement. This debate could influence future legislative or regulatory action.
Conclusion: Security Versus Feasibility in Aviation Policy
The FAA’s calibrated delay balances urgent security imperatives against operational realities. One year provides a finite window to resolve certification and training gaps that persisted throughout the original two-year implementation period. However, this compromise underscores systemic vulnerabilities in aviation rulemaking: Legislative mandates remain susceptible to procedural delays, while stakeholder discord impedes consensus on risk mitigation.
The secondary barrier episode exemplifies how aviation security evolves through tension between proactive threat prevention and reactive operational pragmatism. Future efforts must prioritize synchronized regulator-manufacturer-airline collaboration to avoid analogous bottlenecks in emerging security technologies. As global terrorism threats evolve, regulatory agility becomes as critical as physical defenses in safeguarding flight decks.
FAQ
What is a secondary cockpit barrier?
A secondary cockpit barrier is a physical device, such as a retractable gate, installed between the cockpit door and the passenger cabin to prevent unauthorized access during door transitions.
Why did the FAA delay the rule?
The FAA granted a one-year delay due to a lack of certified barrier designs and approved training materials, making compliance by August 2025 unfeasible for airlines.
Does the rule apply to existing aircraft?
No, the rule only applies to newly manufactured passenger aircraft delivered after August 25, 2025. Existing aircraft are exempt from retrofitting under the current regulation.
Sources
Reuters, FAA, Air Line Pilots Association, Congressional Budget Office, University of Newcastle
Photo Credit: PYOK
Regulations & Safety
Thales to Upgrade Slovenian Airspace with New Radar System by 2027
Thales partners with Slovenia Control to install advanced co-mounted radar system enhancing air traffic surveillance and cybersecurity by mid-2027.
This article is based on an official press release from Thales Group.
On May 27, 2026, French aerospace and defense technology company Thales announced a major contracts with Slovenia Control, the national Air Navigation Services Provider (ANSP) for Slovenia. According to the official press release, the agreement covers the delivery and installation of a co-mounted primary and secondary surveillance radar system designed to modernize the country’s air traffic management capabilities.
The new infrastructure, slated for deployment by mid-2027, aims to provide continuous, redundant 24/7 surveillance of Slovenian airspace. As European flight volumes continue to climb past pre-pandemic levels, ANSPs are increasingly tasked with upgrading legacy systems to handle denser, more complex traffic flows safely.
We note that this upgrade aligns with the latest EUROCONTROL and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recommendations, ensuring Slovenia remains fully compliant with European Mode S Station (EMS) standards while bolstering its defenses against modern cyber threats.
Upgrading Slovenia’s Airspace Infrastructure
Building on a 30-Year Partnership
Thales and Slovenia Control have collaborated for nearly three decades. The press release highlights that Thales has previously supplied the ANSP with various Air Traffic Management (ATM) solutions, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) systems, Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), and an upgraded Air Traffic Services Message Handling System (AMHS). Additionally, Thales previously won a tender to deliver and install a wide area multilateration (WAM) system at Ljubljana Joze Pucnik Airport.
For this latest project, the new radar system will be mounted on a newly constructed 30-meter tower. To ensure uninterrupted and reliable operation during severe weather conditions, the equipment will be enclosed within a protective radome.
Next-Generation Radar-Systems
STAR NG and RSM NG Capabilities
The contract specifies a “co-mounted” configuration, integrating two distinct but complementary radar technologies on the same physical structure to track both cooperative (transponder-equipped) and non-cooperative aircraft.
The primary surveillance radar, the STAR NG, is an S-Band system tailored for Approach Control. It offers a surveillance range of up to 80 nautical miles and detects physical objects without relying on aircraft transponders. Notably, the STAR NG features advanced clutter reduction technology to filter out interference from wind farms and 4G mobile communication networks. It is also capable of detecting small, slow-moving targets such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones.
Operating alongside it is the RSM NG, a digital secondary surveillance radar described by Thales as a “Meta Sensor.” This system communicates with aircraft transponders to gather identity, altitude, and speed data. It combines Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar (MSSR) architecture with fully integrated, redundant ADS-B. According to the provided technical specifications, the RSM NG can track up to 2,000 aircraft per scan and conduct simultaneous Mode S interrogations.
Cybersecurity at the Forefront
With critical aviation infrastructure increasingly targeted by digital threats, both radar systems are engineered to be “cybersecure by design.” The RSM NG utilizes a cybersecurity framework based on National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. It incorporates a virtual machine designed to preserve the radar’s operational behavior while actively protecting the system against jamming, spoofing, and unauthorized cyber intrusions.
“We are honoured that Slovenia Control has once again placed its trust in Thales with the order of this new co-mounted air traffic control radar. This contract reflects not only our commitment to delivering advanced radar surveillance solutions, but also the strength of our long-standing Partnerships in ensuring safe and efficient air operations across Europe.”
, Lionel de Castellane, Vice President of Thales’ Air Traffic Control radars segment, via company press release.
“We are pleased to take this important step forward together with our partner Thales, with whom we share a common goal: safe, efficient and modern air traffic management. This cooperation further strengthens our commitment to continuously enhancing the safety and performance of air navigation services in Slovenia and beyond.”
, Rok Marolt, CEO of Slovenia Control, Ltd., via company press release.
Industry Context: The Pressure on European Skies
The necessity of this infrastructure upgrade is underscored by current European air traffic trends. According to EUROCONTROL’s Spring 2026 forecast cited in the provided research data, European air traffic fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels in 2025, recording 11.05 million flights.
Despite geopolitical disruptions, traffic within the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) area is projected to grow by an additional 2.7% in 2026, reaching approximately 11.3 million flights. This rising volume places immense strain on the European airspace network. In May 2026, EUROCONTROL reported that Air Traffic Control (ATC) capacity and staffing issues accounted for 44% of all en-route delays across Europe.
AirPro News analysis
As the skies become more crowded, structural capacity limits are being severely tested. ANSPs like Slovenia Control are effectively forced to invest in high-precision, automated, and redundant surveillance technologies. Systems like the STAR NG and RSM NG combination are critical for safely reducing aircraft separation distances and managing complex traffic flows efficiently. Furthermore, the specific capability to filter out modern airspace “noise”, such as drone proliferation, wind farms, and 4G interference, demonstrates how technological leaps are required just to maintain baseline safety in an increasingly congested and digitized airspace.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a co-mounted radar system?
A co-mounted radar system integrates two different types of radar, typically a primary radar (which bounces radio waves off physical objects) and a secondary radar (which communicates with aircraft transponders), onto the same physical tower or structure. This provides comprehensive tracking of both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft.
When will the new radar system in Slovenia be operational?
According to the Thales press release, the new radar system is scheduled to be delivered and installed by mid-2027.
Why is cybersecurity important for air traffic control radars?
Modern air traffic control relies heavily on digital data and automated systems. Protecting these systems from jamming, spoofing (broadcasting fake aircraft signals), and cyber intrusions is critical to preventing airspace disruptions and ensuring passenger safety.
Sources: Thales Group Press Release
Photo Credit: Thales Group
Regulations & Safety
FAA Proposes $336,000 Fine Against Planet Nine Private Air
The FAA alleges Planet Nine Private Air misclassified 21 international commercial charter flights, proposing a $336,000 civil penalty.
This article is based on an official press release from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a $336,000 civil penalty against Planet Nine Private Air, a luxury private jets operator based in Van Nuys, California. The agency alleges that the company intentionally misclassified a series of international commercial charter flights to bypass strict regulatory requirements.
According to the FAA’s May 28, 2026, press release, the enforcement action targets operations conducted between November 2023 and August 2024. The agency claims that Planet Nine filed inaccurate flight plans for 21 passenger flights, labeling them as general aviation rather than commercial charter operations.
This alleged misclassification allowed the operator to circumvent the need for specific overflight and landing permits from foreign aviation authorities. The FAA’s enforcement letter emphasizes the severity of these actions, noting that the company failed to follow its own internal procedures during these international routes.
Details of the FAA Allegations
The core of the FAA’s allegations revolves around the strict regulatory boundaries that separate private flying from paid passenger transport. By filing the 21 flights in question as general aviation, Planet Nine allegedly avoided the rigorous oversight and international permitting processes required for commercial operators.
The FAA alleges that the luxury private jet operator violated international aviation regulations by intentionally misclassifying commercial charter flights… and operating in a “careless and reckless manner.”
In addition to the misclassification, the FAA states that Planet Nine failed to adhere to its own Oceanic and International Procedures Manual. The agency views the circumvention of these established safety and operational protocols as a serious breach of aviation regulations.
International Scope and Procedural Failures
The 21 flights cited in the FAA’s enforcement letter highlight a broad international scope. According to the provided research report, the operations took place between the United States and eight foreign nations: Canada, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Operating commercial charters in these jurisdictions typically requires extensive documentation, costly fees, and significant lead times for approval. The FAA alleges that by misidentifying the flights, Planet Nine bypassed these international bureaucratic requirements entirely.
Industry Context and Company Background
Planet Nine Private Air, often branded as Planet 9, is a boutique charter and aircraft management company. Co-founded in 2018 by CEO Matt Walter and Director of Operations James Seagrim, the company operates a “floating fleet” of ultra-long-range business jets, including Dassault Falcon 7Xs, Bombardier Global series, and Gulfstream G550/G650s.
Historically, the operator has touted high safety standards, holding an FAA Part 135 operating certificate alongside Wyvern Wingman and ARGUS Platinum safety ratings. The company maintains a presence in London and New York, in addition to its California headquarters.
The Regulatory Divide: Part 91 vs. Part 135
Understanding the FAA’s proposed penalty requires distinguishing between Part 91 and Part 135 regulations. General aviation (Part 91) governs private, non-commercial flights, which generally face fewer regulatory hurdles and faster approval times for international routing.
Conversely, commercial charter operations (Part 135) involve paying passengers and are subject to much stricter safety, maintenance, and crew rest regulations. Foreign governments mandate that Part 135 operators secure specific permits, which demand rigorous oversight. The FAA’s categorization of Planet Nine’s actions as “careless and reckless” stems from the alleged intentional evasion of these commercial safety standards.
Next Steps for Planet Nine
Following the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter, Planet Nine Private Air has a 30-day window to formally respond to the agency. The company has several legal avenues available to address the proposed civil penalty.
The operator can choose to pay the $336,000 fine, attempt to negotiate a settlement with the FAA, or formally contest the allegations and the penalty amount through an administrative legal process.
AirPro News analysis
We note that this proposed $336,000 fine underscores the FAA’s ongoing commitment to strictly enforcing the boundaries between Part 91 and Part 135 operations, particularly in complex international airspace. While Planet Nine Private Air is a well-established operator with premium safety ratings, these allegations highlight the immense logistical pressures and costs associated with global commercial charters.
If the FAA successfully levies this penalty, it will likely serve as a strong deterrent to other boutique charter operators. The enforcement action sends a clear message that the agency is actively monitoring international flight plan accuracy and will penalize attempts to bypass the bureaucratic and financial requirements of commercial aviation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the proposed fine against Planet Nine Private Air?
The FAA has proposed a civil penalty of $336,000.
How many flights are involved in the allegations?
The FAA alleges that 21 international flights were misclassified between November 2023 and August 2024.
What is the difference between Part 91 and Part 135?
Part 91 regulations govern private, general aviation flights with fewer regulatory hurdles. Part 135 regulations govern commercial charter flights, requiring stricter safety oversight, maintenance standards, and specific international permits.
Sources
Photo Credit: Planet Nine Private Air
Regulations & Safety
TSB Reports Fatal 2023 Helicopter Accident During Maintenance Run
TSB Canada details a fatal 2023 helicopter accident at Smithers Airport caused by skipped checklists and pilot distraction. Mustang Helicopters updates safety policies.
This article is based on an official press release from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
On May 27, 2026, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its final investigation report (A23P0040) detailing the circumstances surrounding a fatal incident that occurred three years prior. The incident, which took place on May 6, 2023, at Smithers Airport (CYYD) in British Columbia, involved an Airbus Helicopters AS 350 B3 operated by Mustang Helicopters Inc.
According to the official TSB press release and accompanying report, the accident occurred during a maintenance ground run, resulting in the death of one ground worker and serious injuries to another. The investigation highlights critical safety issues, specifically the severe dangers of procedural complacency and digital distraction in the cockpit during ground operations.
The Incident at Smithers Airport
Maintenance Ground Run Turns Fatal
The TSB report outlines that on the day of the accident, the Airbus AS 350 B3 helicopter (registration C-GUXR) was undergoing maintenance ground run operations. The specific procedure was designed to balance the tail rotor drive shaft, a highly technical task that requires the helicopter’s rotor system to be operated at nearly full RPM.
During the third maintenance ground run of the day, the aircraft suddenly entered an uncommanded and rapid rotation. At the time, two maintenance staff members were positioned on the ground near the helicopter’s left cargo door to monitor the balancing equipment. As the helicopter spun out of control, both workers attempted to evade the aircraft but were struck multiple times by the tail rotor. Tragically, one worker was fatally injured at the scene, while the other sustained serious injuries and was airlifted to a local hospital.
The TSB investigation notes that the pilot eventually managed to move the engine control to IDLE, shut off the fuel supply, and apply the rotor brake. The helicopter came to a rest after rotating approximately 540 degrees. The aircraft remained upright throughout the event, and no post-impact fire occurred.
Investigation Findings and Human Factors
Skipped Checklists and Unseen Hazards
In its analysis of the events leading up to the uncommanded rotation, the TSB identified several critical human factors and procedural deviations. Following the first maintenance run of the day, the pilot abbreviated the operator’s official checklist to expedite the process.
The pilot abbreviated the operator’s official checklist to expedite the process, viewing the task as “routine and repetitive.”
According to the TSB, this deviation meant that crucial safety steps were missed. Specifically, pressure was left in the hydraulic system, and the right anti-torque pedal remained engaged in a fully forward position. Because the checklist was skipped, this critical hazard went completely undetected prior to the third engine start.
The Role of Digital Distraction
A central finding of the TSB report is the role of digital distraction in the cockpit. Investigators found that the pilot’s attention was split between the highly sensitive maintenance operation and a cellphone, which was connected to a Bluetooth earpiece.
Because the pilot was looking down when the rapid rotation began, he was not expecting the sudden movement. The TSB concluded that his delayed response to the rotational yaw force was insufficient to stop the helicopter from spinning quickly. Investigators emphasized that the minimal time saved by skipping the official checklist was negligible and ultimately contributed to the fatal outcome.
Industry Implications and Safety Actions
Regulatory Blind Spots
The TSB report highlights a significant regulatory gap within the Canadian aviation framework. Currently, there are no Transport Canada regulations that explicitly prohibit the use of cellphones or personal electronic devices in the cockpit during operations.
The safety board has previously identified the severe risks associated with cellphone use in aviation accidents, noting that electronic devices can fatally divert a pilot’s attention from activities necessary for safe operations. The TSB presents this incident as a grim case study on the dangers of complacency during ground operations, which are often falsely perceived by crews as lower-risk than active flight.
Operator Corrective Measures
Following the tragic occurrence, Mustang Helicopters Inc. implemented several corrective safety measures aimed at preventing future incidents. According to the TSB report, the company introduced a strict new distraction policy that explicitly requires the stowing of all electronic devices during operations.
Additionally, Mustang Helicopters added a new standard operating procedure (SOP) specifically tailored for maintenance ground runs to its operations manual. The company also thoroughly revised and strengthened its hazard assessments and safety briefings for both maintenance personnel and pilots.
AirPro News analysis
We note that this tragic event underscores a critical vulnerability in modern aviation operations: the intrusion of personal electronics into safety-critical environments. While active flight operations often command a pilot’s full attention, ground operations, such as maintenance runs, can falsely appear lower-risk, inviting a dangerous level of complacency. The TSB’s findings suggest that regulatory bodies like Transport Canada may need to urgently modernize their frameworks to explicitly address digital distractions. Ensuring that the cockpit remains a sterile, focused environment, even when the aircraft is firmly on the ground, is paramount to preventing similar tragedies in the future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What caused the helicopter to spin during the maintenance run?
According to the TSB, the pilot skipped portions of the checklist, leaving hydraulic pressure in the system and the right anti-torque pedal in a fully forward position. When the engine was started for the third run, this caused an uncommanded and rapid rotation of the aircraft.
Why didn’t the pilot stop the rotation immediately?
The TSB investigation found that the pilot was distracted by a cellphone connected to a Bluetooth earpiece and was looking down when the rotation began. This distraction led to a delayed and insufficient reaction to the sudden yaw force.
Are pilots allowed to use cellphones in the cockpit in Canada?
The TSB report highlights that there are currently no Transport Canada regulations explicitly prohibiting the use of cellphones or personal electronic devices in the cockpit during operations, identifying this as a significant regulatory blind spot.
Sources
Photo Credit: TSB
-
Regulations & Safety5 days agoNTSB Urges FAA to Update Runway Condition Assessment Matrix for Heavy Rain
-
Space & Satellites4 days agoFAA Orders SpaceX Investigation After Starship Flight 12 Booster Mishap
-
Space & Satellites4 days agoUS Space Force Awards SpaceX $2.29B Contract for Military Satellite Network
-
Space & Satellites2 days agoBlue Origin’s New Glenn Rocket Explodes During Test at Cape Canaveral
-
Route Development5 days agoHong Kong International Airport Opens Expanded Terminal 2 for Departures